StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Rogue 9 wrote: Who the fuck is the political party if not the people comprising it?

The thing is that in other countries this process is generally not a public circus. There's just a direct national vote of party members (registered ones, not just anyone who shows up registered for the day) between the candidates and maybe a runoff vote if it's not decided.

The primaries themselves are exactly that, really- the details may vary, but it's always a process in which party members gather and vote.

The US system is different because the parties are set up to give substantial local autonomy to the states- the nomination is decided province by province instead of by national vote. That's a big advantage for states like Iowa, which have a long tradition of holding their primaries early, which means that they get extra influence over a candidate's prospects by controlling whether they get to build momentum in the opening weeks.

It didn't used to be such a circus, but various states started scheduling their primaries earlier and earlier to get more leverage at the expense of other states, until next thing you know, there are primaries being held three to six months before the nomination is officially made, and almost a year before the general election. It also doesn't help that the political media deems events in those few states (like Iowa) to be of huge interest, so they send mobs of reporters to cover the early rounds of primaries for the 'race horse' aspect.

Given that one state constitution is written to mandate being the first primary, I've got this utter urge to troll the entire system by getting such an amendment written into another state constitution. At which point you can just sit there and watch as both states are legally mandated to one-up each other, racing back along the calendar until they actually enter the previous election cycle.

The constant one-upmanship has been tried. In 2008, Michigan and... Florida, I think it was, tried scheduling their primaries before they were "allowed" to, maybe before the Iowa caucus. The parties just refused to accept their delegates at the convention.

Public funding for elections and candidates would be wonderful and I'm all in favor of it, but it would almost certainly require a (US) constitutional amendment. I'm sure we can all see how unlikely it is that a bunch of politicians who won elections by outspending their opponents would ever vote for such a thing.

But will they win by outspending their opponent this year?

Simon_Jester wrote:The primaries themselves are exactly that, really- the details may vary, but it's always a process in which party members gather and vote.

The US system is different because the parties are set up to give substantial local autonomy to the states- the nomination is decided province by province instead of by national vote.

That's nothing special. But e.g. here in Germany we simply decide in local meetings whom we send to the federal convention.
The big difference is that american politics are focused WAY more on single persons. And there is much more "bombard-them-with-ads" hard-sell in american media. To european sensibilities the whole primary process comes off as patently ridiculous. I am not judging, it's just a cultural difference.

Metatwaddle wrote:The constant one-upmanship has been tried. In 2008, Michigan and... Florida, I think it was, tried scheduling their primaries before they were "allowed" to, maybe before the Iowa caucus. The parties just refused to accept their delegates at the convention.

Public funding for elections and candidates would be wonderful and I'm all in favor of it, but it would almost certainly require a (US) constitutional amendment. I'm sure we can all see how unlikely it is that a bunch of politicians who won elections by outspending their opponents would ever vote for such a thing.

Well, it's not completely impossible. The Senate passed the 17th Amendment, after all. But it would take a massive grassroots campaign and probably the threat of the states calling a constitutional convention. So you'd also have to get the state legislatures on board (again, not impossible--it was the threat of a convention that got Congress to pass the 17th), but it would be a big, hard, long-term project.

Wasn't the 17th Amendment passed something like 90 years ago? It's not impossible; but following the same model is well into the "highly improbable" category given the changes since 1913.

Zinegata wrote:Wasn't the 17th Amendment passed something like 90 years ago? It's not impossible; but following the same model is well into the "highly improbable" category given the changes since 1913.

Changes such as what? What specific changes make a successful grassroots push for political change less likely today?

RedImperator wrote:

Zinegata wrote:Wasn't the 17th Amendment passed something like 90 years ago? It's not impossible; but following the same model is well into the "highly improbable" category given the changes since 1913.

Changes such as what? What specific changes make a successful grassroots push for political change less likely today?

Citizens United enabling Super-pacs to flood local markets with political messages against your message. The general apathy of the America voter, the morphing of the media from a reporting industry to entertainment with news actors reading the copy of the AP and adding analysis that was 100% political talking points and 0% actual analysis.

Also the fact that since the 80's the Constitution has been turned from our founding document into our Holy Scripture so the idea of calling a Constitutional convention is greeted much the same by the average America as if you had asked to convene the Council of Cardinals to add the Book of Adam and Steve to the Bible.

The real question is how much foam and fluff and talking heads and bribed obscurantism in politics the American masses are willing to stand. It's gotten vastly worse in the past ten years, but that doesn't mean it can keep getting worse indefinitely. We're already seeing ripples of discontent from the ends of the political spectrum, people no longer willing to work within the system the way they did in 2008.

I wouldn't be surprised to see the American people collectively balk at their treatment within the next ten to twenty years, to the point where a constitutional convention becomes a credible (if difficult) possibility.

Mr Bean wrote:Okay some numbers time now we are at 75% reporting in Nevada
Total votes in Nevada are roughly 25k atm.

Following calculations are when the results were at 31133 votes (91% reporting).

Mr Bean wrote:Of that vote total 27% were Mormon votes of which were Romney votes.

Mormons were roughly 25% and 88% of them voted for Romney, so that's more like 22%.

Mr Bean wrote:25k x 27% = 6750 votes x .92% = 6210 Mormon votes for Romney

Now it's 31133 x 25% x 88% = 6850 (rounded up).

Mr Bean wrote:As Romney's vote total is currently 11822 minus that 6210 we get a vote total of 5612

Now it's 15429. Arbitrarily taking away the Mormon vote of 6850, leaves 8579 non-Mormon voters for Romney.

Mr Bean wrote:Which means if the Mormons had not been in Neveda period New Gingrich would have won Nevada.

His current total non-Mormon vote is actually higher than any other candidate. Gingrich is on 6621, Ron Paul is on 5,901 and Santorum is on 3,182 (at 91% counted).

In summation, even without his Mormon voters, Romney would have shit all over the other candidates.

Yes the final vote total looks like even without Mormon votes he would have cleaned up, interesting Romney also won Catholics. It looks like my numbers were premature since Clark county which was the only major county outstanding yesterday went Romney by nearly 60% adding massively to Romney's vote total. That county alone added nine thousand votes to Romney's total.

Currently ongoing, there's also a Missouri contest going on that awards nothing so is being ignored except as TV filler.
If exit polling is to be believed Rick Sanatorium is going to win the beauty contest and both Colorado and Minnesota and net himself between 29 to 48 delegates depending on the size of his win.

As of this hour, Missouri was called for Rick Santorum.

Santorum wins Minnesota

Dalton wrote:Santorum wins Minnesota

Huzzah for Media to go insane tomorrow as we are back to a three man race, or two man race if they want to ignore Gingrich.
*Edit has Colorado been called as well? It looks like it should be considering the exit polls were reporting 50% Santorum support.

No, only 1% in. Colorado is nowhere near ready to call.

With 30% reporting in, Santorum has a vote share of 42% compared to Mitten's 30%.

http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries/state/co

So other than some of the larger/more Mormon counties not reporting in yet, how is that possible?

The Focus on the Family milquetoast in Colorado made the result fairly predictable in a restricted voting primary, and Minnesota's conservatives are a lot like Iowa's, the only reason the state has a liberal reputation is that unlike Iowa it has a big city that drags it left. Despite these wins I'm not sure Santorum has any traction.

Mittens now leads by 37% to Santorum's 35%, with 51% of the votes in (thanks to Denver and Boulder).

http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries/state/co

Will see how long that lasts.

Now Mittens is leading Santorum by 133 votes, so both are at 37% with 70% of the votes in. I won't bother to link to the CNN website again (same URL).

This feels a lot like Iowa again.

82% reporting in, Santorum now has 38% to Mitten's 37%. CNN is calling it for the chocolate froth.

How incompetent is Mitten's organization?! He won Colorado in 2008 with 60%!

Pelranius wrote:82% reporting in, Santorum now has 38% to Mitten's 37%. CNN is calling it for the chocolate froth.

How incompetent is Mitten's organization?! He won Colorado in 2008 with 60%!

It doesn't matter. All three contests are actually nonbinding.

The GOP chairman just called Colorado for Santorum.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:It doesn't matter. All three contests are actually nonbinding.

Call me an uneducated foreigner who couldn't get this info on Wikipedia, but what does the vote affect?

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:

Pelranius wrote:82% reporting in, Santorum now has 38% to Mitten's 37%. CNN is calling it for the chocolate froth.

How incompetent is Mitten's organization?! He won Colorado in 2008 with 60%!

It doesn't matter. All three contests are actually nonbinding.

Yes, but doesn't the outcomes of these contests have some sort of effect on how the delegates will get divvied up later at the state conventions (I don't think the party bosses would be venal/tone deaf enough to tilt things too much)?